Cost effective trainer?

[Rajay]

Reskinning the wing is a major job, lots of work and not to be taken lightly but it is not a major repair unless the reason for doing it is a major repair like a spar splice. Replacing any part with the identical part is not a major repair no matter how much work it is.

Not necessarily, FAR43, App A:
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.

Also, consult the rest of FAR 43 Appendix A, Item (b) (from whence the above reference was taken) - Per Item (b)(ii) below, just "riveting" a new complete wing skin (on a monocoque or semi-monocoque wing) DOES in fact constitute a MAJOR repair and thus require a Form 337 and an IA to sign it off:

(b) Major repairs —(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.
(i) Box beams.
(ii) Monocoque or semimonocoque wings or control surfaces.
(iii) Wing stringers or chord members.
(iv) Spars.
(v) Spar flanges.
(vi) Members of truss-type beams.
(vii) Thin sheet webs of beams.
(viii) Keel and chine members of boat hulls or floats.
(ix) Corrugated sheet compression members which act as flange material of wings or tail surfaces.
(x) Wing main ribs and compression members.
(xi) Wing or tail surface brace struts.
(xii) Engine mounts.
(xiii) Fuselage longerons.
(xiv) Members of the side truss, horizontal truss, or bulkheads.
(xv) Main seat support braces and brackets.
(xvi) Landing gear brace struts.
(xvii) Axles.
(xviii) Wheels.
(xix) Skis, and ski pedestals.
(xx) Parts of the control system such as control columns, pedals, shafts, brackets, or horns.
(xxi) Repairs involving the substitution of material.
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.
(xxiii) The repair of portions of skin sheets by making additional seams.
(xxiv) The splicing of skin sheets.
(xxv) The repair of three or more adjacent wing or control surface ribs or the leading edge of wings and control surfaces, between such adjacent ribs.
(xxvi) Repair of fabric covering involving an area greater than that required to repair two adjacent ribs.
(xxvii) Replacement of fabric on fabric covered parts such as wings, fuselages, stabilizers, and control surfaces.
(xxviii) Repairing, including rebottoming, of removable or integral fuel tanks and oil tanks.

Jeff: I wasn't trying to slight you in the least bit... There were two reasons that I didn't list the N3N.... First, the number of projects out there and the overall availability of type specific parts is very limited compared to the other aircraft that I listed. Secondly, the knowledge base available to a potential neophyte restorers is small...there are what maybe a hundred or so people that have serious experience with rebuilding N3Ns. Because of those reasons, I wouldn't suggest the N3N for a first time restorer. It would though, make an excellent step up in skills for someone. The only reason that I listed the Stearman, is that there are a bazillion of them out there alown with parts support, and wads of people that have experience with them, so a nubie would be able to readily find experienced assitance when needed.

Besides, a Stearman is a waaaaaay cooler airplane than the lowly N3N.

(Putting sharp stick away and getting ready to run for it.)

Ahem..

There's lots of projects out there to be had, but you want to find something quite doable. If you were to dive headfirst into a T-28 say, you'd probably soon find it a huge, discouraging, and unaffordable white elephant. Don't misunderstand me and think I'm slandering the T-28 because I'm not, but for a first time, do-it-in-your-garage type project, it's way too much. I'd steer you in the direction of a J-3, or a Taylorcraft, or an L-16 Champ. Maybe a Stinson. First of all they're smaller, less complex projects that you'd find more manageable both financially and physically, parts are readily available from a number of sources, and you won't spend the rest of your life putting it together. The skills you learn and connections you'll make putting something like that together you can then carry on into your next, bigger (if you want) project. The satisfaction you'll still find the same.

[N3Njeff]

Well if someone were to persue a N as a project, gary is right. You cant get more straight foreward then a N3N. If you found a straight one and YES there are plenty out there. (just need to look). For the 1st time builder, are you going to tackle working on a set of wood wings???? Doubt it, your going to scrimp and save for a new set, I know I would. As far as parts, the N3N has sources through its owners network and we take pride in that.

Yep a good project would be a taylorcraft or champ but a J-3???"the other popular airplane" 12.5 for a project with no paperwork or engine. By the time your done, your at 20 with a airplane thats worth 30+. I know a N3N project that is VERY STRAIGHT with a low time Wright and he wants 40K, when your done you got a 80K airplane.................anyone got 40K I could borrow??? No brainer there:)

I tell people, you want to build and fly cheap???? Let me throw this type in the ring. Piper Tripacer or Colt............little more money........put the wheel in the back.

I saw a complete but engine-less Piper Colt a little while ago for $6000.

[N3Njeff]

I saw a complete but engine-less Piper Colt a little while ago for $6000.

There all over the place, got to fly a clipper, fast for very little fuel burn! Beats a C-152 any day.

[Ztex]

There's a Clipper on Barnstormers for under 20K.

http://www.barnstormers.com/classified_ ... ipper.html

I think the Colts, Clippers and Pacers would be great airplanes to own.

[retroaviation]

I've flown a Piper Clipper a fair amount and like it much more than the Pacer. It has a stick, rather than a yoke, and has no flaps (which aren't really effective on the Pacer anyway), so it's lighter, faster, etc. Neat little airplane...for a Spam Can.

Gary

[John Dupre]

Reskinning the wing is a major job, lots of work and not to be taken lightly but it is not a major repair unless the reason for doing it is a major repair like a spar splice. Replacing any part with the identical part is not a major repair no matter how much work it is.

Not necessarily, FAR43, App A:
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.

Also, consult the rest of FAR 43 Appendix A, Item (b) (from whence the above reference was taken) - Per Item (b)(ii) below, just "riveting" a new complete wing skin (on a monocoque or semi-monocoque wing) DOES in fact constitute a MAJOR repair and thus require a Form 337 and an IA to sign it off:

(b) Major repairs —(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.
(i) Box beams.
(ii) Monocoque or semimonocoque wings or control surfaces.
(iii) Wing stringers or chord members.
(iv) Spars.
(v) Spar flanges.
(vi) Members of truss-type beams.
(vii) Thin sheet webs of beams.
(viii) Keel and chine members of boat hulls or floats.
(ix) Corrugated sheet compression members which act as flange material of wings or tail surfaces.
(x) Wing main ribs and compression members.
(xi) Wing or tail surface brace struts.
(xii) Engine mounts.
(xiii) Fuselage longerons.
(xiv) Members of the side truss, horizontal truss, or bulkheads.
(xv) Main seat support braces and brackets.
(xvi) Landing gear brace struts.
(xvii) Axles.
(xviii) Wheels.
(xix) Skis, and ski pedestals.
(xx) Parts of the control system such as control columns, pedals, shafts, brackets, or horns.
(xxi) Repairs involving the substitution of material.
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.
(xxiii) The repair of portions of skin sheets by making additional seams.
(xxiv) The splicing of skin sheets.
(xxv) The repair of three or more adjacent wing or control surface ribs or the leading edge of wings and control surfaces, between such adjacent ribs.
(xxvi) Repair of fabric covering involving an area greater than that required to repair two adjacent ribs.
(xxvii) Replacement of fabric on fabric covered parts such as wings, fuselages, stabilizers, and control surfaces.
(xxviii) Repairing, including rebottoming, of removable or integral fuel tanks and oil tanks.

I am willing to stand corrected but in my area the rule of thumb is that if the parts involved are not themselves altered as mentioned above then it is not considered a major repair. It may be that the local FSDO or whatever they call it these days has a looser interpretation than others.

[Rajay]

Reskinning the wing is a major job, lots of work and not to be taken lightly but it is not a major repair unless the reason for doing it is a major repair like a spar splice. Replacing any part with the identical part is not a major repair no matter how much work it is.

Not necessarily, FAR43, App A:
(xxii) The repair of damaged areas in metal or plywood stressed covering exceeding six inches in any direction.

Also, consult the rest of FAR 43 Appendix A, Item (b) (from whence the above reference was taken) - Per Item (b)(ii) below, just "riveting" a new complete wing skin (on a monocoque or semi-monocoque wing) DOES in fact constitute a MAJOR repair and thus require a Form 337 and an IA to sign it off:

(b) Major repairs —(1) Airframe major repairs. Repairs to the following parts of an airframe and repairs of the following types, involving the strengthening, reinforcing, splicing, and manufacturing of primary structural members or their replacement, when replacement is by fabrication such as riveting or welding, are airframe major repairs.
(i) Box beams.
(ii) Monocoque or semimonocoque wings or control surfaces.
(iii) Wing stringers or chord members.
(iv) Spars.
(v) Spar flanges.
(vi) Members of truss-type beams.
etc.

I am willing to stand corrected but in my area the rule of thumb is that if the parts involved are not themselves altered as mentioned above then it is not considered a major repair. It may be that the local FSDO or whatever they call it these days has a looser interpretation than others.

I know what you mean. In spite of the fact that even Part 91 says that any life limits specified by the manufacturer are mandatory, our local FSDO told me to my face that they can only enforce TBO's on engines, props, and governors.

In one particular case, I had a Part 135 operator who required a prop strike tear down inspection and we told him had to replace his engine hoses; he didn't want to do it. Long before AD 95-26-13 came out specifying a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS on engine compartment fuel and oil hoses, every modern Piper Maintenance Manual already specified a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS for those same hoses. The FSDO told me that they couldn't (i.e. wouldn't) enforce it.

The same thing is true for the wing bolts on most small Beech aircraft, including Bonanzas, Barons, and Dukes. The Beech mx manuals say that those 8 bolts need to be "inspected" for corrosion at 5 years, "re-inspected" at 10 years, and "replaced" at 15 years - period (i.e. regardless of actual condition.) That also constitutes a "life-limit", but in my experience very few operators actually did it.

In terms of FAA enforcement, there is always a big difference between "law" (i.e. the FAR's) and "policy" (what they actually enforce.)

[ZRX61]

Long before AD 95-26-13 came out specifying a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS on engine compartment fuel and oil hoses, every modern Piper Maintenance Manual already specified a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS for those same hoses. The FSDO told me that they couldn't (i.e. wouldn't) enforce it.

Was working on a T6 about 10 years ago that had just had an Annual signed off & found a white oil hose.. turns out it was actually black when it originally fitted at the factory when it was built....

[Rajay]

Long before AD 95-26-13 came out specifying a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS on engine compartment fuel and oil hoses, every modern Piper Maintenance Manual already specified a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS for those same hoses. The FSDO told me that they couldn't (i.e. wouldn't) enforce it.

Was working on a T6 about 10 years ago that had just had an Annual signed off & found a white oil hose.. turns out it was actually black when it originally fitted at the factory when it was built....

If I remember correctly, that particular AD note applied only to Piper PA-24, PA-28, & PA-32 series aircraft. Still, it does provide a good rule of thumb for such things. In the absence of mfg's other specifications to the contrary, the engine shop where I used to work always advised customers that it was best to replace all of the engine compartment hoses at each engine overhaul.

On a related note, when I worked at the Daytona Beach Jet Center, on the 2nd shift doing maintenance and inspections on the ERAU fleet, they were always meticulous about replacing the filters and blowing out the vacuum lines anytime a gyro instrument or dry air (vacuum) pump failed. We actually had to photocopy the log book entry from the previous installation of the failed item, showing that the filters were changed, etc. in order to get warranty on the failed item.

I never saw that level of thoroughness after I left DAB. In fact, I saw many aircraft with original 30-35 year old vacuum hoses - so brittle they could be snapped like twigs. One time, while doing the first inspection on a Cherokee 6 that a local pilot had just bought, I found that there was NO central vacuum intake filter installed at all. It was just sucking raw air through the gyros and vacuum pump.

Sorry, that was turning into another rant....

Last edited by Rajay on Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[N3Njeff]

Long before AD 95-26-13 came out specifying a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS on engine compartment fuel and oil hoses, every modern Piper Maintenance Manual already specified a life-limit of 7 years or 1,000 hours TIS for those same hoses. The FSDO told me that they couldn't (i.e. wouldn't) enforce it.

Was working on a T6 about 10 years ago that had just had an Annual signed off & found a white oil hose.. turns out it was actually black when it originally fitted at the factory when it was built....

If I remember correctly, that particular AD note applied only to Piper PA-24, PA-28, & PA-32 series aircraft. Still, it does provide a good rule of thumb for such things. In the absence of mfg's other specifications to the contrary, the engine shop where I used to work always advised customers that it was best to replace all of the engine compartment hoses at each engine overhaul.

On a related note, when I worked at the Daytona Beach Jet Center, on the 2nd shift doing maintenance and inspections on the ERAU fleet, they were always meticulous about replacing the filters and blowing out the vacuum lines anytime a gyro instrument or dry air (vacuum) pump failed. We actually had to photocopy the log book entry from the previous installation of the failed item, showing that the filters were changed, etc. in order to get warranty on the failed item.

I never saw that level of thoroughness after I left DAB. In fact, I saw many aircraft with original 30-35 year old vacuum hoses - so brittle they could be snapped like twigs. One time, while doing the first inspection on a Cherokee 6 that a local pilot had recently bought, I found that there was NO central vacuum intake filter installed at all. It was jsut sucking raw air through the gyros and vacuum pump.

Yep, we look at hoses pretty carefully at our shop. I believe I remember a good story from Gary A about old hoses.............am I right gary??

[snj5]

While there have been some great ideas on this thread, I'll just throw out something. You can build a full size Nieuport 17 replica from a very complete kit for about $13K, less engine with owner assist. You could then have a NEW radial engine from rotec at about $14K. There is no welding, all rivets and aluminum parts, and it is buildable in about 400 - 600 hours.
Easy and a lot of fun to fly.
No affiliation, etc., check out airdrome aeroplanes - they did the planes for the movie 'Flyboys'.
It may not be the purist thing to do, but the fun per $ index is much better than many airplanes mentioned here.
Good luck in whatever you decide, and have fun!